By Kelly Ball
July 2018
Introduction
In many school districts specialty programs are offered at the high school level that include dual-credit courses and dual credit programs that focus on preparing students for areas of study at the college level. Beginning at the elementary level, students in low-income neighborhoods develop language at a lower complexity and diversity as compared to students living in a higher-income area (Neuman, Kaefer, Pinkham, & Graham, 2018). According to the study by Neuman, et al (2018), student in low-income areas are at a disadvantage from a young age. It has been shown by Lafortune, Rothstein, and Schanzenbach (2018) that an increase in the funding and resources in low-income area schools has an implied increase in student achievement. The distribution on funding for schools needs to be equitable for all students, in all schools if the desired result is academic achievement.
A study by Michelmore and Dynarski (2016) showed a negative correlation between students eligible for free meals based on income and lower standardized test scores in third and eighth grades. Although there is no specific data on actual income levels of the students, instead using records of students that fall under an income level that provides subsidized meals for the students. It goes to reason that there is some connection between income levels and academic achievement. This achievement gap begins in elementary and flows low-income students through high school, where these students are less likely to achieve advanced academic performance even when there is evidence that the students have the potential to perform at advanced levels (Plucker, Giancola, Healey, Arndt, & Wang, 2015). The study by Plucker et al continues to suggest that there is need for low-income students to have greater access to advanced educational services. Another study by Taylor (2015) studied over 40,000 students that were enrolled in dual credit course graduating in 2003. Taylor’s (2015) study showed that students of color and low-income students had a smaller effect size compared to non-minority and higher-income students suggesting that dual credit policies are inequitable.
It is not only a racial or income inequity that faces many of the students in public schools, it is the realization that students in these subgroups also face an increased likelihood of being identified as a student with a disability and being coded (or labeled) as a special education student (Ford & Russo, 2016). The evidence provide in Ford and Russo’s (2016) study showed that black students are two times more likely to be referred and identified as a student with a disability through special education. Black students, once identified as special education students, are also more likely to be educated in a more restrictive environment that is separate from their non-disabled peers (Ford & Russo, 2016). This is in direct violation and a huge contradiction to the Individual’s with Disabilities Act that clearly states that students with disabilities under special education should be educated with their non-disabled peers to maximum extent possible; this is known as the Continuum of Services. Even with this federal law, with state laws providing more specificity and clarity, coupled with the increasing policies that school districts enact to provide a free appropriate public education (FAPE) to all students, evidence shows that there are disparities based on race, socio-economic status and geographic location (Baker & Ramsey, 2010, Kohn, 2011, Vaughn, 2013).
It is clear that there is not an equitable distribution of educational opportunities to low-income students in K-12 public schools. In larger school districts, advanced educational opportunities are not always offered on every campus in the district. This may be due to the location of these advanced educational opportunities being in areas that are not accessible to low-income students due to a lack of transportation. In Texas, transportation is only offered for students that live outside a two-mile radius of their home campus. Should the student request a transfer to a different campus within the district, the parents must provide transportation for the student, thus creating a barrier for low-income students to attain advanced educational opportunities.
The Problem
There is problem that publics schools in the United States have been troubled with for many years, and seemingly appears to continue in the future. The problem being an inequitable distribution of educational opportunities to all students. At this point, minority and low-income students that are less likely to have accessibility to attend advanced course or specialized programs in public schools. These minority and low-income students are also more likely to be identified with disabilities through special education and to be educated in a separate area as their non-disabled peers (Ford & Russo, 2016).
Purpose and Hypothesis
The purpose of this paper is provide evidence supporting the hypothesis that students in low-income areas are less likely to attend advanced educational programs when the programs are located at campuses other than their home campus.
Significance
Results from this study should provide useful information to administrative personnel in K-12 public schools and college level administrators. Public school administrators may be able to use the results from this study to plan more equitable locations of advanced educational programs on campuses within their districts. College level administrators may be able to use the results to assist in recruiting low-income students that are better able to demonstrate advanced academic achievement through the availability of advanced educational programs during the student’s public school career. The inequities that begin in the K-12 public schools often extend into the college level (Pitman, 2015). Again, this problem of inequitable accessibility becomes a systematic issue driven by the counseling/advising system, the availability of advanced placement course (and resulting AP test scores) and policy that inhibits students of low income (Davis, Davis, & Mebley).
An equitable educational system is possible once educators realize that a student’s income does not determine their academic performance. As it is difficult to offer all advanced programs at every campus, decisions must be made that provide equitable educational opportunities to all students, regardless of where the students live, their family’s income, race, religion, culture or any other segregating factor. There is hope that providing upper level public school administration with factual results suggesting that inequitable educational opportunities are present within their district that it will inspire a change towards an equitable provision of educational opportunities for all students in their district.
Although the prevailing theme suggests that changes in policy and changes in public schools and colleges is a function of the staff in these various schools, parents should be a part of this change. As Freire (2000) states, pedagogy for the oppressed must include the oppressed in its creation. We also must realize that this is a system of oppression that creates a barrier for minority and low income students to achieve their true academic potential. One question to ask is: How do we know the true academic ability of minority and low income students when they are not allowed the opportunity to show it? Parents and students (to some extent) will benefit from the information provided in this paper and later in proposed future studies. It is has been shown that low income parents have less accessibility to access information about schools as many schools are moving to an online presence (Araque et al, 2013 ). Public school policy should be revisited to ensure that it includes provisions for providing information to parents about advanced education classes and different, specialized programs within the district. It is not enough to post the information on the school’s website.
Research Question
It is my desire and hope that in the future further studies that can use the evidence from previous studies to provide recommendations on closing the equity gap that exists in our public school system. This study would be asking; to what extent is there a significant difference in the number of low-income students that attend educational programs when the programs are located outside the student’s home campus and require the student to provide their own transportation to the campus the program is located at within the district. If there are no significant results, the study will show a similar distribution of higher-income students and low-income students attending advanced educational programs that are located outside of the student’s home campus and require the student to provide their own transportation to the campus the program is located within the district.
Literature Review
There is historical disparity in the student achievement gap between black student and white students in reading and math. A study by Cowan (2014) provides evidence that in the 4th, grade level from 2005 to 2013 only 18% of black student are at above grade level proficiency in reading while 46% of white students are at the same level. At the 12th grade level, only 16% percent of black students were at or above grade level proficient reading level while 47% percent of white students were at or above grade level reading proficiency (Cowan, 2013). The issue of minority students falling behind and creating this student achievement gap cannot be attributed to the students. The poverty theory, which tends to blame the student is not to blame, there has to be some responsibility placed on the schools (Cowan, 2014, Kohn, 2011).
Subtle, yet distinct segregation in schools persist to this day. Segregation or the re-segregation of schools is due to many factors, including geographic locations of schools, racial and culture clusters, housing opportunities for families of differing incomes and availability of school funding (Cowan, 2014, Lafortune, J.,Rothstein, J., & Schanzenbach, D. W., 2018, Silverman, R. M., 2014). Silverman’s (2014) study showed that there is not just a need for school revitalization but a need for neighborhood revitalization. Middle class families consider more things when selecting housing options as they have more opportunities to choose where they live than do low-income families (Silverman, 2014). This leads to de facto segregation as families of similar incomes tend to live in the same neighbors do to housing costs (Ford & Russo, 2018, Silverman, 2014). The costs of building new schools is often prohibitive so school districts are forced to utilize existing campuses that were built in a time of overt segregation. Over the years, demographics in different areas have changed leaving the schools to make do with what they have.
Further, a study by Davis, Davis, and Mebley (2013) provides evidence that there has been a continuous gap of 40 plus years between African-American and White students in Advanced Placement scores, with African Americans scoring significantly lower than White students do. The study goes on to suggest that one reason for this disparity is that African-American students are less likely to have the opportunity to participate in Advanced Placement courses (Davis, Davis, & Mebley, 2013). School counselors, along with school policy create barriers for African-American students to have access to advanced placement courses, which in turn result in African-American students having lower scores on advanced placement tests (Davis, Davis, & Mebley, 2013, Kohn, 2011). There are people in positions of power, though at various levels within a school district, at both central administrative level and the campus level that can influence a change in the accessibility of different educational opportunities for all students, regardless of their ethnicity, socio-economic status, or any other factor (Davis, Davis, & Mebley, 2013, Karns & Parker, 2007, Kohn, 2011).
In addition, cost is always a problem, as is time. School districts constantly use funding as an excuse as to why programs are not available on campuses. States try different methods of funding for districts in order to provide a more equitable method of monetary distribution, some with success and some without success. Some states in the Eastern United States, have tried what is called “Census Based Funding.” This has proven to be an unequal and unequitable form of funding school districts. According to Baker and Ramsey (2010), this method of funding assumes that there is an equal distribution of students with disabilities in each district and on each campus. The study provided strong evidence that there is no evidence of a relationship between the prevalence of students identified with disabilities and the method of funding (Baker & Ramsey 2010). Furthermore, students with disabilities are not uniformly distributed between districts. The evidence showed that there is high geographic clustering of students with disabilities and that there is a strong relationship between poverty rates in a geographical location and disability rates (Baker & Ramsey, 2010).
The funding for students with disabilities based on an assumed percentage of said students creates a disparity in the amount of funding per student between districts. If it is assumed that 15% of the students in a district are students with disabilities, and funding is based on that 15%, then districts with a lower percentage of students with disabilities will receive more funding per student as compared to districts with a percentage of students with disabilities higher than 15%. This is even more severe when the funding is based on individual campus populations (Baker & Ramsey, 2010). As Baker and Ramsey’s (2010) study suggested, there are a higher number of students identified with disabilities in geographic areas that have a higher rate of poverty. One can then infer that schools in high poverty areas will receive less funding per student. If there is less funding per student, how is the school able to provide better and/or more resources for their students? The answer is that the school is unable to provide the same resources that a school receiving more funding per student. This continues the theory when there is in unequitable distribution of funds to low-income areas; there are fewer opportunities for low-income students to access advanced courses of study.
Evidence is shown in a study by Solomon (2002), that poverty is the primary inhibitor of student access to technology. As our education system moves into the future, computer use is becoming more and more a vital and integrated part of education. Yet again, we must look at the effects this increase in the use of technology has on low-income students. Araque et al (2013) provides evidence in their study that suggests that there is a relationship between income and the use of technology. This relationship shows that low-income families are less likely to have the knowledge to use technology due to less access to technology, specifically internet access (Araque et al, 2013).
A study by Wright, et al (2017), Black and Latino students are underrepresented in gifted, advanced placement and International Baccalaureate programs. The study further shows that Blacks make up about 19% of the student population while only making up 10% of the gifted population. Latino students make up 25% of the population while only making up 16% of the gifted population (Wright et al, 2017). The testing that is used to qualify students for gifted programs, advanced placement classes and International Baccalaureate programs remains based on theories that are normed and conceptualized with White middle-class students (Wright et al, 2017). These disparities in the percentages of Black and Latino students compared to White students in these advanced programs and courses has remained constant for many years, as stated the study by Wright et al (2017), these disparities were similar from 2006 through 2011.
A link can be inferred between students in low-income areas and the educational opportunities available and attainable to them at their home campus. Even though technology is made available to students in low-income areas, there is a lack of knowledge and true accessibility to full utilize this technology (Araque et al, 2013). Since evidence shows that finance reform and the proper funding of schools is one aspect of providing equitable access to advanced educational opportunities (Baker & Ramsey, 2010), the question we must ask is; how do we properly fund low-income schools in order to provide equitable access to advanced programs? In Texas, for example, there is the Robin Hood Law that governs the distribution of funds to public schools. All public schools in Texas are funded by the state based on student enrollment. Each school is guaranteed a certain amount of funds per student, with special populations receiving a weighted value for funding. This is outside of any federal monies the districts receive. Even with this more equitable or equal funding system, there continues to be an unequitable distribution of advanced educational opportunities for students within and between school districts.
One possible explanation for this unequitable distribution of school resources is the planning within the district. School leadership must be trained on equitable practices and be the models, the leaders of providing equitable access across their district (Karns & Parker, 2007). At the campus level, this starts with the principal. The leaders within a school district, whether at the District or campus level most often fail in distributing resources equitably due to a lack of knowing what to do (Karns & Parker, 2007). Only through the advancement of equitable practices by school leadership can equity be attained.
Throughout history in the United States, going back to the 1950’s when court cases led to laws eliminating segregation in schools and later dealing with and getting past Jim Crow’s “separate but equal” laws, schools remain highly segregated (Vaughn, 2013). Funding studies have shown that within school district boundaries minority and low-income students continue to remain in clusters (Baker & Ramsey, 2010). Knowing that the cities in which public schools operate have segregated clusters, the planning of campus locations becomes difficult when attempting to build a campus in an area that does not subject itself to the area segregation already in place. Another issue is that new campuses are expensive to build so many districts utilize older campuses that were built during a time of segregation making it extremely difficult for schools to reduce the segregation created by the clustering of minority and low income students in the cities where the schools operate. This location factor as it relates to public schools extends in the college level (Baker & Ramsey, 2010, Pitman, 2015).
A study by Pitman (2015) provides evidence that the clustering of low income students permeates at the college level. There exists at the college level a class system or a perceived ranking of the quality of education based on the college one attends. Those colleges perceived to be elite or considered to elite tend to have a lower percentage of low-income student attending as compared the percentage of low income students that attend college perceived or considered to be of a lower status (Pitman, 2015). Private, for-profit colleges, although serving the same purpose as public (or state) colleges, operate by a different set of guidelines. Public or state colleges should have policy that affords equitable practices in admitting minority and low-income students. After admission, this policy for public state run colleges should make provisions that make attending the college actually attainable for minority and low-income students. For example, the per credit tuition to attend the University of Texas at El Paso as an undergraduate resident is $910.78 for one (1) 3- credit hour course while the same tuition at the University of Texas at Austin is $2307. This is not including books, meals, and other living expenses. This major difference in costs creates a barrier for low-income students to attend certain colleges. Now, since both college are within the University of Texas system, the question arises as to why there is such a difference in the cost of tuition. The perception that UT Austin is more prestigious university than is UT El Paso should not be a factor as both colleges operate under the same Texas University System.
Equitable Theory
I propose the theory that schools can become more equitable as opposed to continuing to promote equality and diversity. Students should have equal access to learning experiences and “fair play” during these experiences. Fair play means that all students should “get it,” with “it” being equitable educational opportunity no matter the time or cost; no matter what it takes (Karns & Parker, 2007). Presently there is no strict definition of equity or quality in education. Equity and equality are too often used interchangeably when there are distinct differences between the two. Where equality provides that everyone get the same thing, equity provides that everyone get what they need. Quality of education is not so easy to define. Where Solomon (2002) purposes equal access to technology for all students, we should be striving for equitable access for all students. Just because all students are provided a laptop computer not all students are able use it adequately or have internet access outside of school. This scenario provides equal access, but it does not provide equitable access. Quality in education as it exists today is based on an economic value system coupled with “accountability” through the use of standardized testing as set forth by federal and state law (Clarke, 2014, Kohn, 1999). Clarke (2014) points out that basing curriculum on economic values and education standards measured by standardized testing reinforced by state and local school policy fails our students by creating winners and losers. Tests were meant to fail students, if too many people, in this case students, pass the tests then the test is deemed too easy or not rigorous enough (Clarke, 2014).
In order to move forward, the past must be examined. Educational leaders must be able to take a thorough, truthful look at their own districts to determine what is not working before making any decisions on what and how to change. In the early 2000’s El Paso Independent School District was rocked by a massive cheating scandal that involved high school principals, district leaders and the superintendent (DeMatthews, & Izquierdo, 2017). A main reason behind the actions of these school officials was to improve school ratings based on the state’s accountability measures. At the time, high school performance was largely measured by the 10th grade state assessment. Knowing this, district leaders encouraged high school principals to place incoming non-native English speakers that were to enroll in 10th grade in a language academy. Once the students completed the yearlong language academy, they were promoted to the 11th grade, thereby skipping the accountability year of testing. The scandal also involved principals telling students not to come to school during the week of testing. Several high school principals, district level administrators and the superintendent lost their educator licenses, and some went to prison (Dematthews, & Isquierdo, 2017). After a lengthy hiring process, a new superintendent was hired who brought him a dedication to righting the wrongs that had been done to students in the El Paso ISD. Instead of focusing on high schools alone, he decided that a culturally appropriate dual-language program should be implemented throughout the district (DeMatthews, & Izquierdo, 2017).
Implementation of a district –wide program is a difficult undertaking involving the commitment of district and campus leaders as well as teaching staff. This district has over 90 campuses with close to 60,000 students. In conjunction with this implementation would be the need for intensive and ongoing staff development and changing the method of evaluation for campus administrators and teachers (DeMatthews & Izquierdo, 2017, Reddy, Kettler & Kur, 2015). Utilizing effective professional development for teachers and campus administrators has been shown to have appositive effect on student achievement; however, the professional development must be done effectively (Reddy, Kettler, & Kurz, 2015). Educators must have the knowledge of content and the knowledge of how to be effective teachers in order to improve student achievement (Solomon, 2002). A study by Akiba & Liang (2016) suggests that some methods of professional development for teachers are more effective than other methods. The most effective method was shown to be a teacher-centered collaborative model with the next most effective method being teacher-driven research (Akiba & Liang, 2016). It is not saying that there should not be guidance from administrators, who should be the instructional leaders on the campus, the fact is that the teachers are the ones who know the students and their needs best. When professional development for teachers is led by teachers, guided and driven by teachers, the results correlate to higher student academic achievement (Akiba & Liang, 2016, Reddy, Kettler, & Kurz, 2015).
Kohn’s Model
One task in making schools more equitable is the assist schools in becoming more effective. A starting point in promoting equity in schools is the review of Kohn’s (1999) recommendations on improving instruction. Kohn (1999) states five fatal flaws in education that prevent schools from becoming more effective. First, students should be thinking about improving their own performance. The traditional model of education promotes teachers being the holders of knowledge and providing this information to the students (Freire, 2000). Second, traditional education promotes basic skills, core knowledge and memorization. This methodology inhibits critical thinking while bot allowing students to be a crucial part of their own education. Fourth, the prevailing push for higher standards is primarily based on standardized testing. When student achievement is based primarily, sometime solely, on standardized state assessments, true learning is left behind in favor of meeting federal and/or state standards schools must meet each year. Again, these standards are based on standardized state assessment results. States that use standardized state assessments to determine student achievement create and rely on set standards of instruction that dictate the scope, sequence, and content that must be taught by grade level and subject (Kohn, 1999). A common result of this method of measuring student achievement, which goes by the buzzword of accountability, creates the conflict teachers face when providing instruction. As teachers think about this conflict, the question comes mind; do teachers provide instruction that will focus on improving test scores or do they teach critical thinking? This method creates teaching that focuses on the answer as opposed to teaching that focuses on the concept (Kohn, 1999).
By using Kohn’s (1999) model, educators are able to determine the current flaws occurring in their district. It is not difficult to identify problems areas in a district or on a campus; the difficult part is designing equitable solutions, implementing the solutions and evaluating the results. There is evidence, as provided in a study by Judson (2017) that teachers provide different levels of instruction based on the class or course they are teaching. Teachers providing instruction in advanced placement classes provided higher expectation of students, more practice on advanced level tests, more test taking strategies and more effective homework than they provided for students in regular classes or courses (Judson, 2017). The expectations set for students must be the same, and they must be high. Using these high expectations for students is equal, providing a means for all students to meet the expectations is equitable. In order for students the meet high expectations, teachers must have the knowledge of how provide instruction for all students to meet them (Reddy, Kettler, & Kurz, 2015)).
Problem-based learning has been shown to be a more effective teaching model than the traditional rote, memorization method used for many years (Merritt, Mi Yeon, Rillero, & Kinach, 2017). Problem-based learning has proven to be highly effective in trade schools and at the post-secondary level, yet it is not widely used at the K-12 level in public schools (Merritt, Mi Yeon, Rillero, & Kinach, 2017). It seems to go against best practice to teach students one way from kindergarten through twelfth grade then teach a different, more effective way at the post-secondary level. The examination of students enrolling in science, technology and math based programs with the interest of pursuing a career in one of these fields is generally not the result of students taking advanced placement classes or tests (Sadler, Sonnert, Hazari, & Tai, 2014). Research shows that students are more likely to pursue careers in STEM fields based on taking additional classes in science, math and technology at the high school level (Sadler, Sonnert, Hazari, & Tai, 2014). These classes are often more successful when taught in a face-to-face format as opposed to an online format. Of the main reasons that students drop online courses, teacher accessibility was one of the most common reasons students dropped advanced classes. The other reasons include scheduling, time constraints, academic rigor, motivation, technology, and parental influence (de la Varre, Irvin, Jordan, Hannum, & Farmer, 2014). This evidence leads to a need for teachers that have the knowledge and training to provide instruction at higher levels.
The rise of STEM education is pushing the problem-based learning model into public K-12 schools at this time. By providing students at all levels with problems to solve, the students are able to use self-discovery and critical thinking in their learning as opposed to listening to a lecture, doing rote memorization work and regurgitating this “knowledge” on a test (English, 2017, Merritt, Mi Yeon, Rillero, & Kinahc, 2017). There are differing views on what the definition of what STEM education is exactly. STEM education combines different aspects of core education (science, technology, English and math) into a holistic approach to learning (English, 2017, Sadler, Sonnert, Hazari, & Tai, 2014). The one thing that is clear about STEM education is that it uses a problem-based learning model that provides meaningful learning experiences to students (Cowan, 2014, English, 2017, Sadler, Sonnert, Hazari, & Tai, 2014). Learning needs to meaningful for students for them to truly learn. In learning, there should be more than just “drill and kill” rote memorization, learning should have meaning, and learning through a problem-based model creates meaning full life experiences for students. High standards, high expectations and the availability of highly effective problem-based learning must be attainable to all students. Equity in education guides in the prospect that all students receive the education they need, not the standardized education created through policy that expects students to adapt in order to allow the standardized educational model to fit them.
References
Araque, J., Maiden, R., Bravo, N., Estrada, I., Evans, R., Hubchik, K., Kirby, K., et al. (2013). Computer usage and access in low-income urban communities. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(4), 1393–1401. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2013.01.032
Baker, B. D., & Ramsey, M. J. (2010). What we don’t know can’t hurt us? Equity consequences of financing special education on the untested assumption of uniform needs. Journal of Education Finance, 35(3).
Clarke, M. (2014). The sublime objects of education policy: quality, equity and ideology. Discourse: Studies in The Cultural Politics Of Education, 35(4), 584-598. doi:10.1080/01596306.2013.871230
Davis, P., Davis, M. P., & Mebley, J. A. (2013, December). The school counselor’s role in addressing the advanced placement equity and excellence gap for African American students. Professional School Counseling, 17(1).
Ford, D. Y., & Russo, C. J. (2016). Historical and legal overview of special education overrepresentation: access and equity denied. Multiple Voices for Ethnically Diverse Exceptional Learners, 16(1), 50-57.
Freire, P. (2000). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum.
Karns, M. S., & Parker, D. R. (2007, January-February). Fair play: accepting responsibility for student results: equity in education relies on equal access to learning experiences and fair play during those experiences. Leadership, 36(3).
Kohn, A. (2002). Poor Teaching for Poor Kids. Language Arts, 79(3), 251–55.
Kohn, A. (1999). The schools our children deserve : moving beyond traditional classrooms and “tougher standards.” .Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co.
Lafortune, J., Rothstein, J., & Schanzenbach. D. W., (2018). School finance reform and the distribution of student achievement. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 10 (2): 1-26.
Michelmore, K., Dynarski, S., (2016). The gap within the gap: using longitudinal data to understand income differences in student achievement. National Bureau of Economic Research.
Neuman, S., Kaefer, T., Pinkham, A., & Graham, S. (2018). A double dose of disadvantage: language experiences for low-income children in home and school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 110(1), 102–118. doi:10.1037/edu0000201
Pitman, T. (2015). Unlocking the gates to the peasants: are policies of ‘fairness’ or ‘inclusion’ more important for equity in higher education?. Cambridge Journal of Education, 45(2), 281-293. doi:10.1080/0305764X.2014.970514
Plucker, J., Giancola, J., Healey, G., Arndt, D., Wang, C. (2015). Equal talents, unequal opportunities: A report card on state support for academically talented low-income students. Jack Kent Cooke Foundation.
Solomon, G. (2002, April). Digital equity: It’s not just about access anymore: sure, most schools now have computers and Internet access, but are all students receiving the same high-quality learning experience? We examine the issues. Technology & Learning, 22(9).
Taylor, J. (2015). Accelerating pathways to college: The (in)equitable effects of community college dual credit. Community College Review 43(4), 355-379.
Vaughan, R. (2013). Schools in US “more racially segregated than 40 years ago.” The Times Educational Supplement. (5061), 14.
Wright, B. L., Ford. D. Y., & Young, J. L. (2017) Ignorance or indifference? Seeking excellence and equity for under-represented students of color in gifted education. Global Education Review, 4(1). Educators Reference Complete.